Previous Debate: Are the current team paving the way for a gay Bond?

tilly wrote:

We should never let the truth get in the way of a good story, if you throw enough mud some of it will stick. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

I find it rather bizarre that a heterosexual person needs to act a certain way and only say certain things to prove their straight, being true to one self should be enough. Surely it’s the other persons own hang ups and insecurities that are suspect.

DC doesn’t divulge much regarding his private life, family and friends, takes on roles that the image conscious are wary of, is not homophobic with his friendships, ignores the paps, and rarely responds to provocative gossip which makes him an easy target for certain sections of fandom and the media. Kudos to the man for ignoring the snide attacks that still continue post 2005.

Regarding the blue trunks, this type of swimwear is frequently worn on European beaches. If we are going to gaydar Craig Bond, why not do the same for Connery Bond flaunting his hairy chest, parading in his baby blue playsuit, the wearing of the colour pink e.g. tie, shirt and tight shorts.

And while we’re at it shouldn’t we worry that Connery was groomed to be the perfect Bond by a team that included gays. We all know don’t we what happens to boys who go to private schools perhaps Bond got b------- by his class mates.

As illustrated above, if we are so inclined it’s quite easy to paint someone in a bad light by twisting things to fit our agenda, kind of sad really.

Well said.

Grav, I do suspect that you want Craig to be bisexual, because it serves your "Eon Productions is insanely PC" agenda. In the absence of anything but tittle-tattle on the subject, you're deliberately choosing to believe that Craig likes men. It's odd that you seem so convinced of what went on at the Roosterfish, almost to the point where you appear ready to swear on oath. You weren't there, yet you're almost falling over yourself to note that: "The fact that Gossip Cop could not find anyone to corroborate the Enquirer's story is not evidence that the Lovin', Touchin' and Squeezin' didn't occur."

Loomis wrote:

tilly wrote:

We should never let the truth get in the way of a good story, if you throw enough mud some of it will stick. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

I find it rather bizarre that a heterosexual person needs to act a certain way and only say certain things to prove their straight, being true to one self should be enough. Surely it’s the other persons own hang ups and insecurities that are suspect.

DC doesn’t divulge much regarding his private life, family and friends, takes on roles that the image conscious are wary of, is not homophobic with his friendships, ignores the paps, and rarely responds to provocative gossip which makes him an easy target for certain sections of fandom and the media. Kudos to the man for ignoring the snide attacks that still continue post 2005.

Regarding the blue trunks, this type of swimwear is frequently worn on European beaches. If we are going to gaydar Craig Bond, why not do the same for Connery Bond flaunting his hairy chest, parading in his baby blue playsuit, the wearing of the colour pink e.g. tie, shirt and tight shorts.

And while we’re at it shouldn’t we worry that Connery was groomed to be the perfect Bond by a team that included gays. We all know don’t we what happens to boys who go to private schools perhaps Bond got b------- by his class mates.

As illustrated above, if we are so inclined it’s quite easy to paint someone in a bad light by twisting things to fit our agenda, kind of sad really.

Well said.

Grav, I do suspect that you want Craig to be bisexual, because it serves your "Eon Productions is insanely PC" agenda. In the absence of anything but tittle-tattle on the subject, you're deliberately choosing to believe that Craig likes men. It's odd that you seem so convinced of what went on at the Roosterfish, almost to the point where you appear ready to swear on oath. You weren't there, yet you're almost falling over yourself to note that: "The fact that Gossip Cop could not find anyone to corroborate the Enquirer's story is not evidence that the Lovin', Touchin' and Squeezin' didn't occur."

It's funny that such a lot of complaining about EON's agenda seem to pursue an agenda of their own and do it indirectly. Why not just come right out and say that they don't like Craig? There is nothing wrong with that. If they can't stand him why not openly admit it? I liked most Bond's but Brosnan wasn't for me and I won't say otherwise; wouldn't ever think of disliking another fan for not liking any Bond including Craig. There's no need for this slander, just say that you peeps don't like him and be done with it.

Quote :

It's funny that such a lot of complaining about EON's agenda seem to pursue an agenda of their own and do it indirectly.

Whaaaah?! More psycho babble from Professor Metz. Ummmm Metz, that doesn't quite work. Actually there is no parallel in Bond land, but that's OK, the poor BAB board has suddenly been invaded by hyperactive progressives, rushing to the defence of poor Craig's heteroness At least nobody's been called a homophobe for a day or two or a misogynist or a rascist, or anything else from the little progressive bag of names.
How about some straight talk though. Some clarity. Brace yourself, I don't personally think Craig is gay, but others do. Big deal. Its a free world. People are entitled to their opinions and its not like Craig doesn't help fuel them.
Fact: Craig is on the record making remarks to the Daily Mail in 2008 suggesting that he is down with the idea of a bi-Bond. The remarks are on the record for crying out loud. This doesn't mean Craig himself is gay but it could and people will form their opinions. And btw, just so there is no doubt. It is ok that he might just be. Not that he is mind you. Inclusive enough? Or are we just projecting our own inner gayness (Kennon)? You never know. The inner psyche can be real confusing. :shock:
What Craig's comments do mean though, IMHO of course, is that Craig can be a pc nit, falling all over himself to sound progressive and tolerant but just making a pretentious arse of himself. We are talking Bond here. The character is hetero. End of story. Craig looks stupid.
Oh but wait, maybe he didn't actually say that. Well he is on the record. Just like he is on the record a few months later in the Guardian, where he is quoted as saying, there have been no discussions about Bond having male lovers and also that he doesn't think its going to happen.
Please, read both quotes. One from the Daily Mail and one from the Guardian. Both on the record. They basically boil down to this.
First Craig says he's open to a bi-Bond. Later he says he doesn't think it will happen and that there have been no talks to that effect.
Neither remark contradicts the other and even if they did, so what. He's entitled to change his mind. Who wants to get an earful from Bond message boards.
Anyway both of the Craig musings are on the record. Make of them what you will.
However if people want to go ballistic over the first remark, that's fair game, because the remark is quite frankly uber-provocative when you are talking about a giant of heteroness like Bond.
Craig put his foot in it.
As for the Equals feminist propaganda piece, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what that piece is - pure propaganda. The problems with the honesty and integrity of that so-called PSA are numerous and have been fully articulated elsewhere on this fine upstanding James Bond discussion board.
Never mind the other matter, that Craig agreed to make the iconic character a spokesperson, dressed in drag no less, for such a "cause".
Now if some Bond fans, especally progressives, are down with it. Great! Free world. I'd be schocked if you weren't. If it all works for you, that's just fine and dandy. Your boy's stepping up for the "cause" Free world.
However, please, surely even in progressive la-la land, one can understand why long standing Bond fans rooted in Fleming's creation might take exception to Craig's choices.
Babs we get. She's a card carrying full blown progressive. There isn't a liberal cause she doesn't march for. You go Babs! Fight the fight! Keep doing what you do. Craig we are still trying to salvage.
Now just to calm down our progressive friends. Many are on the record here of being ok with a gay actor playing Bond. Many, may not be, and that's ok too and they can make their arugment. Does't make them, in the progressive parlance, a "homophobe". Rather it means they have an opinion. It may not jibe with progressive correct-thought but tough poop. Independant thought can be a bitch.
End of lecture. And if you don't like it, if it helps, just picture me in full Craig, dress, pumps and wig, stamping my heels. Could I be any more inclusive or tolerant?
I'm trying. I really am and so I'm sure is Craig. He's kinda caught in the middle. He's got Babs and Haggis in his ear on one hand, and traditional Bond fans on the other. How's a poor actor to be inclusive and keep everyone happy?
I feel for you Dan, I really do. But how the hell do you walk in these things?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Craig was actually in the Roosterfish at the time the Enquirer alleges, with gay male friends.

I have often been in gay bars with gay male friends, doesn't make me a gay man. And I've often been in the fruit & veg section at Tesco, surrounded by fruit & veg, doesn't mean I'm a potato. And I've often been at the vet, surrounded by furry animals. Doesn't mean I'm a hamster. I think you see where I'm going with this.

I think it's probably also worth remembering the Atlantic divide here. For Europeans, the whole 'gay thing' is much less of an issue. Call us all woolly liberals if you like but a probably straight man hanging out with gay men, in gay places, doesn't mean quite the same thing here as it does over there. We are in general much more relaxed about a number of matters. The average beach around here could keep the tits thread on this forum going for weeks from just one visit. What can be seen as Daniel Craig being a normal bloke over here is, I think, easy to misinterpret as 'pushing a PC agenda' for those the other side of the Atlantic. Calling us all hyperactive progressives is oversimplifying the huge cultural differences involved.

It's funny that such a lot of people complaining about EON's agenda seem to pursue an agenda of their own and often do so indirectly. Why not just come right out and say that they don't like Craig? There is nothing wrong with that. If they can't stand him why not openly admit it? I liked most Bonds but Brosnan wasn't for me and I won't say otherwise; wouldn't ever think of disliking another fan for not liking any Bond including Craig. There's no need for this slander, just say that you peeps don't like him and be done with it. It's immensely more PC-crap-ish to feel this way and not have the balls to say so. Instead there's suddenly a homosexual subtext in a perfectly staight bar scene (no, it's not there and the moment you start seeing things nobody else does you should wonder if you really do see them). I have yet to see somebody else talking the same homobabble about that scene, hasn't happened yet and there's hardly lack of haters here. Well, that tells something too.

And no, I don't believe in the Atlantic gap in this case. The Bonds are also made for the American market, the whining would have been homeric in scale.

Short answer: no.

Here you go K. I did a google search re gay subtext in QoS. Lots of misc ramblings come up.
Here's one I cherry picked from a message board entry that came up.
" And, really, I'm sure it'll be one glamour shot of
him drinking a Coke Zero and not a wholesale replacement. After
all: back in the Dalton days they made great hay out of the
decision to have Bond stop smoking and drinking and have him
engage in safe sex, but for Craig they've gone the opposite route
and hyped how he's back to the way he used to be (and then there's
the whole 'gay subtext' thing they're trying to push, but
whatever)."
This guy acts like the gay subtext is a fait accompli, and then later in the discussion, others say they don't see anything. Of course they don't its subtext.
As for the bar scene. I think that's blatant, but I honestly can't remember when I first noticed it, as I've seen the movie proably about 15 times by now. I think I might have read it somewhere and then noticed it... or maybe I picked it out myself, spooked by all the Craig is gay rumours. Who knows and I quite don't care either.
Then there is Lazenby's real funny post, which is lurking somewhere on these boards in which he finds about 10 examples of gay subtext in the film, including the bar scene .
It's good for a laugh. So don't read so much into the gay subtext. That's the beauty of subtext. By its very nature it's easily ignored, not noticed at all, or outright dismissed.

The lady doth protest too much.

That's what I think, too.

Sharky wrote:

The lady doth protest too much.

Which one? :)

Just feel like dropping in and saying ...

On the gay sub-text debate - just because you read into something with that doesn't mean its going to result in that. for example in Literature class last year espiecally we specifically for s***s and giggles did homosexual readings of texts ('phallic symbol' is so overused) - in some cases there was a valid reason behind it but in other circumstances we were just lookin for it - and we would find it in the smallest things.

Beyond that there are plenty of people on the internet who apply that reading to it. Like all subtexts as, Tiff, noted you don't always realise it but sometimes its just someone reading too far into it.

(though I will have a rewatch of QoS to see this apparent gay sub-text that I've missed)

I don't think there will ever be a gay Bond. Maybe one day in the far future bi ... who knows but never just gay. AS for a gay actor playing Bond I have so issue because someones sexual orientation shouldn't limit roles for them.

And I've said it but a black Bond won't happen. Ever.

I'd say this






has easily ten times the gay subtext of QOS's bar scene and the entire rest of the series combined. And then some more, dripping from the exhaust; milky thick stuff; vaguely yoghourt-like...

tiffanywint wrote:

Here you go K. I did a google search re gay subtext in QoS. Lots of misc ramblings come up.
Here's one I cherry picked from a message board entry that came up.
" And, really, I'm sure it'll be one glamour shot of
him drinking a Coke Zero and not a wholesale replacement. After
all: back in the Dalton days they made great hay out of the
decision to have Bond stop smoking and drinking and have him
engage in safe sex, but for Craig they've gone the opposite route
and hyped how he's back to the way he used to be (and then there's
the whole 'gay subtext' thing they're trying to push, but
whatever)."
This guy acts like the gay subtext is a fait accompli, and then later in the discussion, others say they don't see anything. Of course they don't its subtext.
As for the bar scene. I think that's blatant, but I honestly can't remember when I first noticed it, as I've seen the movie proably about 15 times by now. I think I might have read it somewhere and then noticed it... or maybe I picked it out myself, spooked by all the Craig is gay rumours. Who knows and I quite don't care either.
Then there is Lazenby's real funny post, which is lurking somewhere on these boards in which he finds about 10 examples of gay subtext in the film, including the bar scene .
It's good for a laugh. So don't read so much into the gay subtext. That's the beauty of subtext. By its very nature it's easily ignored, not noticed at all, or outright dismissed.

I like how that poster has spotted how there's a 'gay subtext' in Craig's films but has seemingly failed to notice that during TLD alone, Dalton's 'non-smoking, non-drinking' Bond accepts a glass of champers at the end of the pre-credits sequence from the girl on the boat, smokes at the Bladen safehouse, accepts a Vodka Martini from Kara, has poured out 2 glasses of bubbly for himself and Kara in her dressing-room at the end ...

For every smoke Bond has, a phallic symbol appears.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Faester. Literary critics (and film critics, too, I suspect) are comically guilty of reading their own fears and desires into the texts. These people can find racism, sexism, and homophobia in a coin minted in Iceland in 1479.

tilly wrote:

Kudos to the man for ignoring the snide attacks that still continue post 2005.

Not that I care, because I truly don't give a spit whether he prefers the pole or the hole, but how is suggesting that he's bisexual on par with a "post 2005" attack on his character? If being gay or bisexual is perfectly normal, then we're just speculating about him as we would any other heterosexual actor or actress. I've assumed for about a year now that he was a very European male i.e. was mostly a vagitarian, but occasionally liked to have a side of beef on his plate.

Quote :

Regarding the blue trunks, this type of swimwear is frequently worn on European beaches. If we are going to gaydar Craig Bond, why not do the same for Connery Bond flaunting his hairy chest, parading in his baby blue playsuit, the wearing of the colour pink e.g. tie, shirt and tight shorts.

Context is key. The blue swim-trunks may mean nothing to Europeens because they're used to seeing fat, bald men wearing speedos and sporting some plumber's crack on the beaches of Monte Carlo and the Italian Riveria. In America, most straight men wear something a bit more modest...board shorts that come down to the knees. So while Craig's baby-blue sack wrangler may have gone mostly unnoticed in European cinemas, it caused some theaters in America to arm their theater ushers with smelling salts, as quite a few women (and a few men) passed out.

Quote :

As illustrated above, if we are so inclined it’s quite easy to paint someone in a bad light by twisting things to fit our agenda, kind of sad really.

But you're assuming that assuming someone is gay is 'painting them in a bad light' or 'twisting things to fit an agenda'. I thought it was common knowledge he was bisexual; I was merely stating something that I assumed was viewed as fact. I know some are going to respond that we really, really, really don't know whether someone is gay, straight, or bi, but I've had enough experience listening to the denials of actors, musicians and politicians over the years that I simply can't take their denials at face value. Too many have lied, only to be forced into telling the truth later over issues such as soliciting men for sex in bathrooms or Anthony Weiner taking photos of his *enis and sending it to his Twitter followers. Sorry, but I just can't accept a P.R. expert's denial, and in this particular case Craig nor his people ever denied the report.

Quote :

I think the International Women’s Day video subliminal or otherwise hit its mark, if the grinding of teeth is anything to go by. It would seem these frickin women don’t know their place. A fictional character supposedly the epitome and standard bearer for manhood is unsurprisingly still indicative of who should remain at the top of the totem pole. I think the whining to maintain the status quo pretty much sums up what for some takes precedence over the plight of the debased and vulnerable.

No one is whining to maintain any status quo. But Bond is not a role model, and he's certainly nobody that would have ever been associated with a progressive, feminist agenda. Furthermore, it's not Bond's fault that there are millions, perhaps billions of debased and vulnerable women in the world, particularly in Muslim countries. Rather than use Bond to promote social justice, wouldn't Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman have been a better mascot for the cause?

I mean, what's next? Bond selling Kotex Tampons in an advertisement in Ladies Home Journal?

Quote :

For those complaining about the world being too PC, the term is quite overblown and should be viewed as a more civilised form of meting out quotas. Obama is a prime example of how to neutralise minorities without spilling blood and if and when there is any blood letting he’s set up to be the perfect patsy for all demographics.

:sleep:

Quote :

The public face of progression really shines brightly, get past the smoke and mirrors and you’ll find the same old institutions still pulling the strings and controlling their puppet(s), they may snap on occasion, but will be strengthened to a rope for lynching and then guess what, it’s business as usual and the cycle of (in)equality continues.

Men and women are different. Always have been, always will be. No amount of feminist, progressive re-edumication will change the very nature of what it means to be a man or to be a woman. Since the days of the caveman going out to hunt dinosaur and bring back meat, men have been the dominant gender of a dominant species.

Honey, the very first day when I see a woman changing a flat tire for a man on the side of the road I'll gladly cash in my 401k and contribute the whole thing to the National Association of Gals. Until then, I'm going to continue to be the sexist, misogynistic dinosaur relic of the cold war that I am. Like Lady Gaga, I was born this way. I yam what I yam!!!

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But you're assuming that assuming someone is gay is 'painting them in a bad light' or 'twisting things to fit an agenda'.

But your deciding that Craig is bisexual serves your cause of painting the Bond series (as it currently operates) in a bad light. In other words: Craig's bisexuality means Babs and co. are politically correct for employing him, and his employment helps the series in its quest for "diversity", "social crusading", etc. Heck, Mendes is probably getting ready to film him in a gay love scene with Javier Bardem as we speak. Wouldn't have happened with Brosnan!

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I thought it was common knowledge he was bisexual; I was merely stating something that I assumed was viewed as fact.

Perhaps we ought to put this to a poll, because I honestly, honestly, honestly scratch my head in utter bewilderment when it read the claim that Craig's (supposed) bisexuality is "common knowledge". As I've mentioned before, here in Britain (his home turf, where he's one of the most famous and discussed men in the land, as opposed to the little-known bit player* he is in America), he's known as a no-nonsense ladies' man, through and through - indeed, his reported conquests of a string of beautiful women put 007 himself to shame. No one thinks he's gay or bisexual.

*You'll know this better than I do, but I'm under the impression that a great many Americans haven't even heard of Daniel Craig. My mentioning him to Americans has sometimes resulted in their giving me baffled looks, even when I've pronounced his surname as "Cregg", which I gather is how it's said on your side of the pond. Seems a lot of folks round your way are vaguely aware that the Bond series is still going but have no idea who the lead actor is nowadays.

Loomis wrote:

But your deciding that Craig is bisexual serves your cause of painting the Bond series (as it currently operates) in a bad light. In other words: Craig's bisexuality means Babs and co. are politically correct for employing him, and his employment helps the series in its quest for "diversity", "social crusading", etc.

:scratch:

Where in the heck did you come up with that? I don't believe Craig is an affirmative-action quota hire; never for one second have I believed it or said it. I believe Barbara is trying to use James Bond in ever increasingly obvious ways to put across points for a political and social agenda that she agrees with, but I've never thought her hiring of Craig was anything but up a straight up hire of someone she believed represented her tough, gritty, new-old approach to 007.

The "social crusading" has been done through lines such as "sexist misogynistic dinosaur" and "you know this sort of behavior could qualify as sexual harassment", or having a female psychiatrist sent out to evaluate 007, or have a female doctor decide whether Bond is fit for duty, or having Felix played by a black actor (even though at the time Barbara was claiming she was trying to be faithful to the universe that Ian Fleming created in Casino Royale) or having Moneypenny potentially played by a black actress or, you know, putting Bond in a dress, stockings, wig, and high heels and have him shamelessly talked down to by a whinging, bleating M that is pandering for his respect, then berating him for all of the ills that have befallen women around the world. Yeah, THAT I have a problem with, but I so care not whether Daniel Craig is gay, straight, bi that if this conversation never came up again it wouldn't bother me.

Quote :

Perhaps we ought to put this to a poll, because I honestly, honestly, honestly scratch my head in utter bewilderment when it read the claim that Craig's (supposed) bisexuality is "common knowledge". As I've mentioned before, here in Britain (his home turf, where he's one of the most famous and discussed men in the land, as opposed to the little-known bit player* he is in America), he's known as a no-nonsense ladies' man, through and through - indeed, his reported conquests of a string of beautiful women put 007 himself to shame. No one thinks he's gay or bisexual.

You know, that's great. I'm glad he has a reputation as nothing but a 100% heterosexual stud. I apologize profusely for suggesting that if he had any sort of an attraction to a man that it immediately rendered him anything less than a "no-nonsense ladies man, through and through". But just to be clear, are you saying that if he had even a sliver of an attraction to a man that that would be what you would consider "nonsense"?

Quote :

*You'll know this better than I do, but I'm under the impression that a great many Americans haven't even heard of Daniel Craig. My mentioning him to Americans has sometimes resulted in their giving me baffled looks, even when I've pronounced his surname as "Cregg", which I gather is how it's said on your side of the pond. Seems a lot of folks round your way are vaguely aware that the Bond series is still going but have no idea who the lead actor is nowadays.

He's a star when America tells him he's a star. America hasn't told him he's a star yet. They've apparently embraced him as James Bond, but I remember something Carrie Fisher said one time: she realized it wasn't her that people liked and reacted to, it was that she looked like Princess Leia, and she joked that George Lucas tried to charge her a fee every-time she looked in the mirror. So, I'm suggesting that Craig is popular as Bond because he's done a good job and looks reasonably like James Bond (the cinematic version at least; no way this guy is Fleming's James Bond), but whether he goes on to be a major star in his own right remains to be seen, and until he does, he won't have instant name recognition like, oh God, Kim Kardashian.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But just to be clear, are you saying that if he had even a sliver of an attraction to a man that that would be what you would consider "nonsense"?

Nope. What I do consider nonsense - and I type this with a great deal of respect for your Bond knowledge and enthusiasm, and a great deal of affection for your posts - is the idea that Craig has somehow been confirmed as bisexual - c'mon, the allegations of some unnamed guy in the parking lot of a gay bar to a scandal sheet journo ain't enough - and that his bisexuality is common knowledge. (Although to be fair to you I'm not sure whether you meant common knowledge to the world at large and cinemagoers in general, or just common knowledge among Bond fans, although either way I wouldn't agree - I've been on CBn for years and have barely encountered a single whisper about Craig's supposed bisexuality. As I recall, this story about the Rooster Bar or whatever it's called just came and went. It had a life of about five minutes. It was barely given the time of day even on CBn. Neither did it cause much of a stir within the notoriously rabid British tabloid media, and I do think that if there were any smoke to this particular fire the U.K. tabloids would have "outed" Craig ten times over by now. They'll follow him on holiday to rural England in the depths of winter and stand there freezing their butts off in the hope of getting a shot of him with Rachel Weisz, but they won't expose him as bisexual?)

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Honey, the very first day when I see a woman changing a flat tire for a man on the side of the road I'll gladly cash in my 401k and contribute the whole thing to the National Association of Gals.

Well, honey bunny, you'd better get ready to pay up because I have done that, and with a broken rib at the time.

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But just to be clear, are you saying that if he had even a sliver of an attraction to a man that that would be what you would consider "nonsense"?

Nope. What I do consider nonsense - and I type this with a great deal of respect for your Bond knowledge and enthusiasm, and a great deal of affection for your posts - is the idea that Craig has somehow been confirmed as bisexual - c'mon, the allegations of some unnamed guy in the parking lot of a gay bar to a scandal sheet journo ain't enough - and that his bisexuality is common knowledge. (Although to be fair to you I'm not sure whether you meant common knowledge to the world at large and cinemagoers in general, or just common knowledge among Bond fans, although either way I wouldn't agree - I've been on CBn for years and have barely encountered a single whisper about Craig's supposed bisexuality. As I recall, this story about the Rooster Bar or whatever it's called just came and went. It had a life of about five minutes. It was barely given the time of day even on CBn. Neither did it cause much of a stir within the notoriously rabid British tabloid media, and I do think that if there were any smoke to this particular fire the U.K. tabloids would have "outed" Craig ten times over by now. They'll follow him on holiday to rural England in the depths of winter and stand there freezing their butts off in the hope of getting a shot of him with Rachel Weisz, but they won't expose him as bisexual?)

Fair points, but what if an actor isn't necessarily hiding his sexuality? What if there's nothing to "out" because he's not in hiding? You think I'm arguing in favor of his being bisexual, but what I'm really doing is arguing in defense of the tabloids which have a pretty good track record of running down this sort of titillation. I'm not saying it's right or it's okay, but it IS what they do best.

Did not THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER receive a Pulitzer Prize nomination for their coverage of the John Edwards sex-affair with Rielle Hunter? Did not everyone involved in that story lie through their stinking rotten teeth to cover their tracks, only for the truth to eventually come out? Did not John Edward recently become indicted by a federal grand jury for paying off his mistress with political campaign donations?

Curiously, nobody around or in Craig's camp that I'm aware of denied THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER's story about Craig, not that anyone is compelled to, nor is guilt or innocence to be inferred from Craig's non-rebuttal. As a PR exec, I would have advised Craig and his management team to do exactly what they did: say nothing, make no comment, and let the story die....which is precisely what happened. But I'm just not going to take the easy way out of this story and blame it all on "tabloid journalism" and categorically say it's not true....or that it is true. And clearly Craig doesn't feel there's anything wrong with being perceived as gay or bisexual, therefore there's nothing from his point of view that needs defending. He wasn't a married man; he'd made no commitments. He's free to do what he wants.

I'm trying to understand the harm in assuming he was bisexual. And, let me tell you something else, so many males in Hollywood are gay or bisexual that I've become very ambivalent about it all. I think it's safe to assume that half the leading men on television and in the movies are gay/bisexual.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I think it's safe to assume that half the leading men on television and in the movies are gay/bisexual. To be promiscuous is very European; to be ashamed and guilt-ridden over it is very American.

It sounds very much like you're saying gay/bisexual = promiscuous. But I'm sure you wouldn't say anything that silly...

Santa wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I think it's safe to assume that half the leading men on television and in the movies are gay/bisexual. To be promiscuous is very European; to be ashamed and guilt-ridden over it is very American.

It sounds very much like you're saying gay/bisexual = promiscuous. But I'm sure you wouldn't say anything that silly...

Well, that wasn't what I meant, and I went back and edited it out because I couldn't think of any other way to word what I was trying to say. I was recalling a line from DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS where Steve Martin begs to be released from a French jail on the grounds that the French know what its like to have an affair and cheat on a woman. The police offer responds: 'To be with another woman, that is French. To be caught, that is American." I was thinking of Craig allegedly cheating on Satsuki when I parodied that line.

No offense meant to anyone, particularly members of B&B's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Omnisexual, Asexual, Nonsexual, Pansexual, Transgender, Transvestite, Hermaphrodite, and BDS&M communities.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Curiously, nobody around or in Craig's camp that I'm aware of denied THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER's story about Craig, not that anyone is compelled to, nor is guilt or innocence to be inferred from Craig's non-rebuttal. As a PR exec, I would have advised Craig and his management team to do exactly what they did: say nothing, make no comment, and let the story die....which is precisely what happened.

Exactly. But there's another possible reason for a celebrity not bothering to deny a story like this one: some years back, Jason Donovan (an Australian actor and singer who made it big in Britain) sued a British magazine for alleging he was gay. He won, but his libel action backfired and damaged his career, because many felt that it was a homophobic act that carried the implication that there was something wrong with being gay. I don't think Craig and his management team would wish to do anything that would lead to their being perceived as homophobic and alienating large numbers of cinemagoers. As you say, better to keep his dignity and keep silent and let the story die (also, a denial would of course only fuel further speculation).

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And, let me tell you something else, so many males in Hollywood are gay or bisexual that I've become very ambivalent about it all. I think it's safe to assume that half the leading men on television and in the movies are gay/bisexual. To be promiscuous is very European; to be ashamed and guilt-ridden over it is very American.

Maybe. Although (and this is just my own personal view) I think Brits are generally culturally much closer to Americans than they are to Europeans and certainly on sexual matters. Many Brits perceive the French and Italians as, erm, "free-spirited" in just the same way as I believe many Americans do (that said, an American friend of mine was once reduced to stunned silence when he learned of the existence of page three of The Sun).

Mind you, whether Craig is an old-school "British" Brit, or more, erm, European in outlook, I've no idea. But that's my whole point, really: it's all just speculation.